Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Victoria Cuming
April 20, 2021
How COP26 Climate Pledges Compare in Run-up to Earth Day
1 April 20, 2021
World leaders will gather April 22-23 at a U.S.-organized Earth Day summit to discuss boosting their climate ambitions. The host is expected to
set an example by announcing its 2030 emission target. Evaluating goals is tricky as countries employ various methods for making pledges,
which include widely different structures, baselines and scopes. This note seeks to unravel the mystery by comparing commitments in four ways.
● Based on the change in absolute volumes of emissions 2010-30, the U.K., EU and Brazil have the most ambitious 2030 targets. All three
parties’ pledges would also see them doing their part to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius – one of the goals of the Paris Agreement.
● In contrast, developing countries – notably Turkey, India and China – could meet their 2030 NDC targets while increasing their emissions
substantially. And because they are such major emitters, their contributions would assure that G-20 emissions overall rise by more than half.
Executive summary
Absolute
emissions
Emission
intensity
Emissions
per capita
Gap to BAU
scenario
Argentina 6th 9th 7th 11th
Australia 5th 5th 14th 2nd
Brazil 3rd 8th 4th 13th
Canada 4th 6th 16th 17th
China 15th 7th 15th 16th
EU-27 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st
India 16th 11th 3rd 15th
Indonesia 14th 10th 6th 10th
Japan 7th 12th 8th 6th
Mexico 12th 15th 5th 9th
Russia 10th 14th 13th 5th
Saudi Arabia 13th 13th 17th 8th
South Africa 11th 16th 10th 12th
South Korea 8th 4th 9th 3rd
Turkey 17th 17th 11th 14th
U.K. 1st 1st 1st 7th
U.S. 9th 3rd 12th 4th
G-20 NDCs ranked on four metrics
Source: BloombergNEF.
More
ambitious
Less
ambitious
● Emerging economies like India and China often peg their targets to
emissions per unit of GDP (‘emission intensity’). This goal type
can promote decarbonization, while allowing for economic growth.
On this basis, the U.K. and EU still take the top two spots. China
finishes 7th and India 11th – higher than the ranking based on
absolute volumes. However, their intensity targets are not
aggressive enough to ensure a global temperature increase of less
than 2 degrees.
● Governments tend to set emissions per capita goals if they
expect significant population growth. Today, India has lowest per-
capita emissions while major fossil-fuel producers and consumers
Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia are at the high end. On a per-
capita basis, all but five of the G-20 countries’ goals would result in
lower emissions. But only the U.K. reaches a level below 3.5 metric
tons per person – our estimate for the level required for a 1.5-
degree target. India remains at the lower end and would be aligned
with a 2-degree target using this metric.
● The fourth way of setting an NDC and gauging its ambition involves
measuring the gap between emissions if the target is met and what
emissions would have been absent a target. We refer to this metric
as the ‘gap to business-as-usual (BAU) scenario’.
2 April 20, 2021
16
14
7
7
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
U.K.
EU-27
Brazil
U.S.
Australia
Canada
India
Japan
Argentina
Indonesia
South Korea
Mexico
China
Saudi Arabia
Russia
South Africa
Turkey
● We calculated countries’ BAU emissions using estimates for GDP and
population forecasts, and trends in energy consumption and emissions.
The 2030 estimate was then compared with emissions if a country’s NDC
target was achieved. Based on this, only the EU-27 would be aligned with a
2-degree scenario as its target requires significant abatement. For seven
G-20 nations, including China and India, emissions under their 2030 targets
would be higher than BAU – ie, their goals incentivize no abatement.
● In an effort to unify clashing methodologies, BNEF has created aggregate
country scores. Under our basic methodology, a country earns five points
if it is expected to contribute its share toward achieving a 1.5-degree
scenario under any of the four measurement methodologies, creating a
maximum of 20 points per country. Parties received three points under any
methodology where they met a 2-degree threshold. Slightly ambitious goals
received one point while unambitious pledges got zero.
● Based on this blended system, the EU-27 and the U.K top the list for 2030.
If a new U.S. pledge only aligns with the trajectory of its 2025 target, it will
be well behind its European peers. It could close the gap only with a goal at
the upper bound of what it reportedly is considering (eg, 53% or so).
● China and India could find themselves under pressure in coming days as
their pledges can only be regarded as ambitious under the criteria they set
for themselves.
● In separate previous research, BNEF found that the EU nations and the
U.K. have implemented the strongest domestic decarbonization policies to
make good on their international pledges. But they will require further
domestic policies to meet their targets and achieve deep decarbonization.
● Others, notably Brazil, Australia and the U.S., face significant gaps
between their climate ambitions and the level of domestic policies they
have legislated and implemented.Source: BloombergNEF. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission trend
from its 2025 target (2030 goal unconfirmed). Saudi Arabia is striped to
illustrate this is based on BAU emissions, as its NDC has no emission target.
Executive summary (2)
G-20 NDCs under the BNEF methodology
-45% Change in emissions 2010-30 to limit
global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius
-25% Change in emissions 2010-30 to limit
global warming to 2 degrees Celsius
+49% Change in G-20 emissions 2010-30 if
unconditional NDC targets are met
More ambitious
Less ambitious
Maximum score =
20 points
3 April 20, 2021
Contents
Context 3
Comparison results 10
Country snapshots 20
Appendix 39
4 April 20, 2021
Context
5 April 20, 2021
● The most important climate summit since the Paris conference in 2015 – COP26 – is due to kick off
November 1, bringing together nearly 200 parties. The overall aim of the event is for countries
to agree on how they can work together to reduce emissions and promote climate adaptation, with
a view to cutting costs and accelerating progress. The decisions made at COP shape governments’
and companies’ efforts to tackle climate change.
● COP26 will be the first opportunity to discuss countries’ climate plans, as each party was due to submit in 2020 a Nationally Determined
Contribution (NDC) covering the next decade. This is the first step in the Paris pledge-review-ratchet cycle (see figure). In 2023 parties will
review the climate pledges and assess their aggregate progress toward the Paris goals. The results of this ‘global stocktake’ will enable
governments to prepare their next NDC and increase the ambition of their commitments.
● Of the G-20 members, nine have submitted a pre-COP26 plan, of which only the EU, U.K. and Argentina have pledged tougher emission
targets. In addition, Japan released a revised NDC in 2020 but has said it plans to increase its commitments before COP26.
● Among the laggards is China and in December 2020 at the Climate Ambition Summit President Xi Jinping reiterated the country’s 2030 target
to cut CO2 emissions per unit GDP by more than 65% below 2005 levels. This suggests that while the country intends to submit a revised
NDC before Glasgow, it is unlikely to amend its headline 2030 emission goal. This pledge is also in line with the 14th Five-Year Plan, published
in March 2021, which includes a target to reduce emissions per unit of GDP by at least 18% over the Plan period (2021-25). (For more, see:
BNEF’s Take on China’s 14th Five-Year Plan, web | terminal).
● The party attracting most media attention at present is the U.S., having re-joined the Paris Agreement in February. President Joe Biden has
invited 40 world leaders to a virtual climate summit on April 22, by which time the U.S. intends to announce “an ambitious 2030 emissions
target” as its NDC. Its current goal is for a 26-28% reduction by 2025 relative to 2005 levels. The Japanese and South African governments are
also drafting new plans to be issued before November. Other announcements may be made around the time of the G-7 and G-20 meetings
and the virtual COP preparation meeting scheduled for May 31 to June 17.
What are NDCs?
For more detail on why this year’s
climate summit is especially important,
see: COP26 in Glasgow: Five Reasons
Why it Matters (web | terminal).
Pledge Countries submit climate
their pledges (NDCs)
ReviewFirst global stocktake
assesses progress relative
to Paris Agreement goals
RatchetCountries prepare their next
NDCs and increase the
ambition of their pledges
WE ARE HERE
2020 2023 2025
Source: UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Paris Agreement cycle
Context
6 April 20, 2021
Source: UNFCCC, BloombergNEF. Note: 1 Little difference between second and updated NDCs,
although the former may include more changes from the previous version. 2 Japan’s target deadline is
fiscal year 2013. 3 Turkey’s target is partly conditional. INDC = intended NDC (precursor to NDCs)
Status of 2020 NDC targets
Submitted
2020 NDC?Target type
Unconditional
target level
Target
deadline
More ambition?
(previous
target)
Argentina Second NDC1 Emission cap 359Mt 2030 (483Mt)
Australia Updated NDC Base year (2005) 26-28% 2030
Brazil Updated NDC Base year (2005) 43% 2030
Canada Base year (2005) 30% 2030
China Intensity 60% 2030
EU-27 Updated NDC Base year (1990) 55% 2030 (40%)
India Intensity 33-35% 2030
Indonesia BAU scenario 29% 2030
Japan Updated NDC Base year (2013)2 26% 2030
Mexico Updated NDC BAU scenario 22% 2030
Russia First NDC Base year (1990) 25-30% 2030
Saudi Arabia No target No target No target
South Africa Emission cap 614Mt 2030
South Korea Updated NDC Base year (2017) 24.4% 2030
Turkey INDC only BAU scenario 21%3 2030
U.K. Updated NDC Base year (1990) 68% 2030 (40%)
U.S. Base year (2005) 26-28% 2025
Status of 2020 NDCs and latest emission target● Under Paris, governments may structure their NDC
goals how they like, resulting in a wide variety of types
(see box below), deadlines and levels. Some
countries – notably China – have carbon-intensity
targets only. In such cases, we assumed that the
target is applied to all greenhouse-gas emissions.
● In addition to the unconditional goals on the table,
some developing parties have pledged more ambitious
targets only if associated conditions are met (notably
financing or support provided). In fact, developing
countries request a total of $4.3 trillion in their NDCs.
However, developed countries are already well behind
on their target to raise $100 billion a year by 2020.
This note focuses on the unconditional pledges in an
attempt to establish a minimum level of ambition.
Four main types of NDC target1. Base year – the most common target type
whereby a country reduces emissions by a
certain share of the total in a given year.
2. Intensity – same as above but instead of
absolute volumes, the reduction relates to
emissions per unit of GDP.
3. BAU scenario – the country must cut emissions
by a certain share of forecast emissions in the
deadline year (eg, 2030).
4. Emission cap – the country may not exceed a
given volume of emissions over the target period
or in the deadline year.
Context
7 April 20, 2021
Required change in absolute emissions to meet 2030 target relative to different base years
Source: UNFCCC, BloombergNEF. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission trends from its 26% target for 2025, equating to a 34% reduction by 2030.
What’s in a base year?
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Argentina Australia Brazil Canada China EU-27 India Indo-nesia
Japan Mexico Russia SouthAfrica
SouthKorea
Turkey U.K. U.S.
1990 2005 2013 2017
266% 438% 402%766% 252%
Red border = the party’s base year for its NDC target
● The base year a country chooses to compare its future target against can have major implications for the country’s true level of ambition. The
most common ‘base years’ are 1990, as used by European parties including the EU and Russia, and 2005, as preferred by other developed
countries such as the U.S., Australia and Canada. In comparison, Japan bases its target on 2013 and South Korea 2017.
● The base year can make a significant difference to the percentage change in emissions required to achieve a target: for example, South Korea
has a goal to cut emissions 24% below 2017 levels. If the target were relative to 2005, Korea would require no change to current emissions. If it
based its commitment against 1990, the country could double its current greenhouse-gas output.
● In practice, the base year does not alter the abatement needed to reach a target, but it may be selected based on political reasons to appear
more ambitious. As such, all the G-20 members with this type of target have chosen the base year that would mean the biggest emission
decrease in percentage terms, as shown by the red borders in the figure below. (Countries without a red border do not have a base-year target.)
Context
8 April 20, 2021
2010 policies
Current policies (excluding NDCs)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent
● The headline target of the 2015 Paris Agreement is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-
industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” (Article 2). Human activities have
already a rise of some 1 degree above pre-industrial levels, and global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees between 2030 and 2050 if it
maintains the current trend, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
● To limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees by the end of the century, world emissions in 2030 must be some 25% below 2010 levels.
To be on a 1.5-degree path, they must drop 45%. Some progress has been made: leaving aside the NDCs, green policies today would mean
projected emissions in 2030 of 59 billion metric tons – down from the 64-billion level they would have been at had policies in place in 2010
remained untouched.
● Nonetheless, there remain massive gaps between global emissions from least-cost scenarios that keep global warming to 2 or 1.5 degrees
Celsius, and the estimated global emissions from current policies without the NDCs. For 2 degrees, this gap amounts to some 18 billion metric
tons – 31% – and 31 billion metric tons – 58% – for the more ambitious scenario.
2- and 1.5-degree scenarios
Source: UNEP, Emissions Gap Report 2020; BloombergNEF. Note: ‘Current policies’ excludes NDCs.
Global greenhouse-gas emissions under climate scenarios
Below 2°C
by 2100
Below 1.5°C
by 2100
2030
● The analysis below assumes that the G-20 countries
must also achieve a 25% and 45% reduction in
emissions on 2010 levels by 2030.
● In practice, there is unlikely to be a uniform decrease
across parties, to be determined by a range of
political, social, economic and physical factors.
● At the very least, countries vary to the extent that
citizens perceive climate change to be a global
emergency and significant risk. They may also agree
that it poses a significant risk but disagree on
government responses and spending. For more, see:
What Divides and Unites Us on Climate Action and
Awareness (web | terminal).
● A particularly contentious issue is the question of
fairness and responsibility, as discussed on the next
slide.
Context
9 April 20, 2021
Source: Gütschow, J., Günther, A., Jeffery, L. and Gieseke, R., The PRIMAP-hist National Historical
Emissions Time Series v2.2 (1850-2018), 2021.
Emission debt burden
● Climate change is driven by the stock of emissions in the atmosphere – not annual flows. This has led some to argue that responsibility and
thus a party’s level of ambition should be based on its contribution to historical emissions. As a result, the principle of “common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” was included in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and later the
Paris Agreement, which also awarded various concessions and support to developing economies.
● But the divide between developed and developing countries has led to increasing tensions and slowed progress in climate negotiations, in
particular as emerging economies accounted for a growing share of emissions. There is no agreed method to assign responsibility or the
‘emission-reduction burden’: developed countries accounted for 60% of global emissions (excluding land use and forestry) over 1850-2018, of
which the U.S. alone held a 23% share. Some emerging economies are not far behind: China made up 13% of the historical total compared
with 16% for the EU-27. However, this is far from being the case on a per-capita basis, as discussed below.
Global greenhouse-gas emissions (excluding land
use and forestry) by party
U.S.
EU-27
U.K.
Russia
AustraliaJapanCanada
Other Annex I
India
China
Brazil
Other non-Annex I
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1850 1862 1874 1886 1898 1910 1922 1934 1946 1958 1970 1982 1994 2006 2018
● Some attempts to quantify this burden involve determining
each nation’s fair share of a safe global carbon budget
based on population and then subtracting it from historical
emissions to determine if it owes an ‘emission debt’.
● The U.S. has overshot its fair share by 40%, Russia 8%
and Japan 5%, according to a research paper published in
The Lancet in 2020.* In contrast, China and India had
emitted 34% and 11% less than their ‘fair share’.
● The flexible set-up of the NDC means that governments
can tailor their climate plans to their needs and priorities.
The aim is that the system of peer pressure spurs parties
to pledge a ‘fair’ target in line with their emission debt.
COP26 will be an initial test of the Paris approach.
● The issue of fairness is often raised in climate
negotiations. However, our methodology makes no
attempt to levelize countries based on emission debts.
* Hickel, J., Quantifying National Responsibility for Climate Breakdown:
an Equality-Based Attribution Approach for Carbon Dioxide Emissions in
Excess of the Planetary Boundary, The Lancet, Vol 4, Issue 9, 2020.
Context
10 April 20, 2021
Comparison of
pledges
11 April 20, 2021
16
14
7
7
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
U.K.
EU-27
Brazil
U.S.
Australia
Canada
India
Japan
Argentina
Indonesia
South Korea
Mexico
China
Saudi Arabia
Russia
South Africa
Turkey
Source: BloombergNEF. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission
trends from its 2025 target. Saudi Arabia is striped to illustrate this is
based on BAU emissions, as its NDC has no emission target.
NDC score summary and rankings
Absolute
emissions
Emission
intensity
Emissions
per capita
Gap to BAU
scenario
Argentina 6th 9th 7th 11th
Australia 5th 5th 14th 2nd
Brazil 3rd 8th 4th 13th
Canada 4th 6th 16th 17th
China 15th 7th 15th 16th
EU-27 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st
India 16th 11th 3rd 15th
Indonesia 14th 10th 6th 10th
Japan 7th 12th 8th 6th
Mexico 12th 15th 5th 9th
Russia 10th 14th 13th 5th
Saudi Arabia 13th 13th 17th 8th
South Africa 11th 16th 10th 12th
South Korea 8th 4th 9th 3rd
Turkey 17th 17th 11th 14th
U.K. 1st 1st 1st 7th
U.S. 9th 3rd 12th 4th
G-20 scores under four metrics
G-20: 2
● This year’s COP host the U.K. and the EU have put forth far more ambitious NDC targets than other G-20 countries in terms of overall
commitment, BNEF finds. The two score highest based on BNEF’s blended system for comparing NDCs.
● Under our basic methodology, a country earns five points if it is expected to contribute its share toward achieving a 1.5-degree scenario under
any of the four measurement methodologies, creating a maximum of 20 points per country. Parties received three points under any
methodology where they met a 2-degree threshold. Slightly ambitious goals received one point while unambitious pledges got zero.
● If the U.S. announces a 2030 pledge in line with the ambition of its 2025 goal, it will remain at the upper end of the ranking – albeit well behind
its European peers. (For more, click here.) However, there may well be calls for other developed countries – notably Australia, Canada and
Russia – to up their unconditional targets. Given their contribution to global emissions, China and India may also come under pressure.
G-20 total scores
Comparison results
Maximum score = 20 pointsMore ambitious
Less ambitious
Source: BloombergNEF.
12 April 20, 2021
-59%
-47%
-46%
-34%
-28%
-26%
-16%
-16%
-14%
19%
21%
32%
64%
81%
155%
170%
180%
U.K.
EU-27
Brazil
U.S.
Canada
Australia
Argentina
Japan
South Korea
Russia
South Africa
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
China
India
Turkey
All G-20: +49%
● The first and arguably simplest method for evaluating the strength of an NDC involves comparing the change in absolute emissions it would
trigger between 2010 and 2030. Using such an approach, the U.K., EU and Brazil are all on path to cut emissions by more than 45% over that
20-year period. That potential drops allows the three to make their share of contribution to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. In contrast,
for eight countries hitting their targets will mean their absolute emissions rise. Because this group includes major emitters China and India,
G-20 emissions as a whole are on track to rise 49% 2010-30 under the NDCs – a far cry from the Paris Agreement goals.
● The U.S. NDC as of April 19 targeted 2025. For comparability, this report assumes that post-2025 U.S. emissions decline on the same
trajectory to put the U.S. in 2030 38% below 2005 levels (its chosen base year) and 34% below 2010 emissions. This means the U.S. is
aligned with a 2-degree scenario. To see the impact if the Biden administration opts for a more ambitious pledge, click here.
Comparison 1: absolute emissions
In line with 1.5°C:
-45% or less
In line with 2°C:
-25% to -44%
Slightly ambitious:
-26% to 0%
Unambitious:
Over 0%
More ambitious
Less ambitious
Projected absolute emissions changes if G-20 NDC
targets are met, 2010-30● Russia has by far the weakest 2030 target among developed
G-20 countries, with a potential 19% emissions rise over 2010
levels. Even this goal is subject to the “sustainable and
balanced socio-economic development of the Russian
Federation”, according to its NDC. This condition is not
defined, however.
● Saudi Arabia’s NDC does not include a quantitative emission
target. As such, we assume that it maintains out to 2030 the
same compound annual growth rate of 3% observed over
2010-18. This means that its emissions in 2030 are nearly
three times the volume in 1990 and 64% up on 2010 levels.
● Note that we have applied China’s carbon-intensity target to
all emissions. CO2 accounts for around two-thirds of the
country’s greenhouse-gas output. This means that in practice
it could see emissions increase by more than 155% relative to
2010 levels.
Source: WRI CAIT, World Bank, IMF, UNFCCC. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission trends from its 2025 target. Saudi Arabia is striped to illustrate this is based on
BAU emissions, as its NDC has no emission target.
Comparison results
13 April 20, 2021
-64%
-56%
-54%
-43%
-39%
-37%
-33%
-23%
-13%
-12%
-4%
-1%
9%
24%
26%
28%
151%
U.K.
EU-27
U.S.
South Korea
Australia
Canada
China
Brazil
Argentina
Indonesia
India
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Mexico
South Africa
Turkey
All G-20: -3%
● Emerging economies – eg, India and China – have often set targets based on emissions per unit of GDP. If set appropriately, such goals
incentivize decarbonization , while accommodating for economic growth. We used GDP projections from the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) to estimate the emission-intensity trajectory if a party were to achieve its 2030 NDC target.
● As shown on this slide, economic prospects vary across the G-20 members. If the bloc were to achieve a 25% emission reduction for a 2-
degree scenario, this would equate to a decrease of 51% in intensity over 2010-30. Meeting 1.5 degrees would mean a 64% cut.
● The U.K. has the most ambitious target in terms of emission intensity. This is because meeting its goal would require such a significant
reduction in absolute volumes of greenhouse-gas output (-82% – see previous slide) and the country is expected to see relative modest
economic growth (13%) over 2010-30. The EU-27 is not far behind its former member state for similar reasons.
Comparison 2: emission intensity of GDP
In line with 1.5°C:
-64% or less
In line with 2°C:
-51% to -63%
Slightly ambitious:
-50% to 0%
Unambitious:
Over 0%
More ambitious
Less ambitious
Projected emission intensity per GDP changes based
on G-20 members’ NDC targets, 2010-30
● In contrast, Indonesia, the U.S. and South Korea are relatively
high in the ranking for a different reason: their targets would
mean a less sizeable reduction in absolute volumes of
emissions but this lack of ambition is to be outweighed by a
much higher projected economic expansion.
● At the lower end of the ranking, there is a distinction between
developed and developing countries: the former tend to have
more modest emission-reduction targets in terms of absolute
volumes (eg, Japan).
● In contrast, emerging economies are set to see their
economies grow massively over the period (282% for China
and 182% for India).
● The growth prospects for such large economies mean that the
G-20 would achieve a minor 3% reduction in emission
intensity if all members achieved their targets. This would be
well behind the 51% reduction needed to limit global warming
to below 2 degrees.
Source: WRI CAIT, World Bank, IMF, UNFCCC. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission trends from its 2025 target. Saudi Arabia is striped to illustrate this is based on
BAU emissions, as its NDC has no emission target.
Comparison results
14 April 20, 2021
18.8
7.4
11.8
19.5
4.6
9.9
11.8
8.8
10.5
4.7
5.1
10.8
2.1
8.3
9.3
22.7
17.9
17.7
16.4
14.1
11.7
10.7
9.8
9.7
7.8
7.6
7.1
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.3
3.5
Saudi Arabia
Canada
China
Australia
Russia
U.S.
Turkey
South Africa
South Korea
Japan
Argentina
Indonesia
Mexico
Brazil
India
EU-27
U.K.
2010 2030
27.3
28.7
2010 and 2030 projected absolute emissions per
capita based on G-20 countries’ NDC targets
● While some countries prefer emission-intensity targets, others have opted to set goals based on per-capita trends if they anticipate significant
population growth. Using projections from the World Bank, the figure below shows G-20 emissions per capita in 2010 (on the left) and 2030
assuming they achieve their targets. Today, India has the lowest per-capita emissions – less than half Turkey’s in second-lowest position, while
at the high end lie significant fossil-fuel producers and consumers Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Russia.
● All but five of the G-20 countries’ 2030 goals would mean a cut in per-capita emissions. But only the U.K. reaches less than 3.5 metric tons –
our estimate for the level required for a 1.5-degree target. Despite increasing per-capita emissions 131% from 2010-30, India remains at the
lower end of the ranking and would be aligned with a 2-degree target (with 4.8 metric tons), together with the EU-27. Yet nine of the remaining
countries are we define as ‘Unambitious’ as their 2030 per-capita emissions exceed the global average that year (8.4 metric tons). This trend
means that the weighted average for the G-20 rises from 7.4 to 10.0 metric tons over the period.
Comparison 3: absolute emissions per capita
Consumption-based emissions
These estimates relate to where emissions occur (‘territorial-
based emissions’) rather than where goods and services are
consumed. Some countries – notably the EU-27, U.K. and
Japan – have considerably higher consumption-based
emissions as they rely more on imports, while the reverse is
the case for countries like China and Russia.
Compliance with the 1.5-degree goal would require
consumption emissions to drop to 2-2.25 metric tons by 2030,
according to the IPCC. This would be a considerable
challenge for the U.S., for example, which stands at some
17.6 metric tons and the EU-27 and U.K. at 7.9 metric tons.
Estimates vary widely between income groups: the global top
10% of earners would need to reduce their consumption
emissions to around a tenth of their current level and those in
the top 1% by at least a factor of 30, according to Oxfam and
the Stockholm Environment Institute. In line with 1.5°C:
3.7t or less
In line with 2°C:
3.8-5.0t
Slightly ambitious:
5.1-8.2t
Unambitious:
Over 8.4t
More ambitious
Less ambitious
Source: WRI CAIT, World Bank, IMF, UNFCCC. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission trends from its 2025 target. Saudi Arabia is striped to illustrate this is based on
BAU emissions, as its NDC has no emission target.
Comparison results
15 April 20, 2021
0
50
100
150
200
250
1990 2004 2018
GDPEnergy intensity (energy/GDP)
Emission intensity
of energy (emissions/energy) Absolute emissions
Source: Kaya, Y. and Yokoburi, K., Environment, Energy, and Economy: Strategies for Sustainability, 1997; World Bank, IMF, IEA, WRI CAIT.
● A more accurate assessment of an NDC’s ambition is arguably to take account of the effort required to achieve it, or more specifically the gap
between emissions if the target is met and the level without a target (ie, under a business-as-usual, BAU, scenario). To estimate BAU
emissions to 2030, we apply the ‘Kaya identity’ (see figure), which is used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special
Report on Emissions Scenarios and subsequent reports.
● This equation assumes that emissions are driven by population, wealth and technology, which can be broken down into energy intensity (the
amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP) and emission intensity of energy (the amount of emissions per unit of energy).
● As shown in the figures below, these variables have evolved in different directions: while the G-20’s weighted-average GDP increased by 3.1%
per year 1990-2018, energy-efficiency improvements resulted in a 1.3% decline in energy intensity. The lack of change in emission intensity
indicates that the fuel mix saw relatively little change over the period.
● The estimates for BAU emissions across the G-20 members are based on GDP projections from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which
assumes a 5% drop in global GDP in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a return to pre-pandemic levels at global level from 2021. We
extrapolate the data for total energy supply – as a proxy for energy consumed – and emissions data based on historical trends.
Comparison 4: gap to BAU scenarioHow to calculate BAU emissions
G-20 historical trendIndex 1990 = 100
+3.1% per year -1.3% per year -0.4% per year +1.4% per year
0
50
100
150
200
250
1990 2004 2018
0
50
100
150
200
250
1990 2004 2018
0
50
100
150
200
250
1990 2004 2018
Comparison results
16 April 20, 2021
-13%7%
-29%-…
17%2%
38%21%
-7%19%
15%46%
10%11%
60%-40%
-0.4%
ArgentinaAustralia
BrazilCanada
ChinaEU-27
IndiaIndonesia
JapanMexicoRussia
Saudi ArabiaSouth AfricaSouth Korea
TurkeyU.K.U.S.
24%-13%
11%-4%
-35%-23%
-35%-18%
-26%-10%
-1%16%
-10%-2%
11%-28%
-16%
Source: WRI CAIT, World Bank, IMF, UNFCCC. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission trends from its 2025 target. Saudi Arabia is striped to illustrate this is based on
BAU emissions, as its NDC has no emission target.
Comparison 4: gap to BAU scenarioHow to calculate BAU emissions - change over 2018-30
-9%23%
-6%24%
24%
13%4%
9%16%
11%15%
28%12%
19%
ArgentinaAustralia
BrazilCanada
ChinaEU-27
IndiaIndonesia
JapanMexicoRussia
Saudi ArabiaSouth AfricaSouth Korea
TurkeyU.K.U.S.
72%
91%
104%
GDP Energy intensity of GDP Emission intensity of energy
BAU emissions ● The G-20 is expected to see its GDP grow 36% 2018-30, despite a 5%
dip in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. If the bloc maintains historical
trends, it reduces energy and emission intensity by 17% and 6% through
efficiency savings and switching to cleaner fuels. As a result, G-20
emissions rise 10% over the period.
● Of the individual members, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and India see the largest
increase in BAU emissions due to significant growth in wealth and a lack
of progress in terms of switching to a cleaner energy mix.
● China is expected to double the size of its economy over the period. But
this GDP increase will be mitigated by a marked decrease in energy
intensity and a slightly cleaner fuel mix, resulting in a 17% rise in
emissions.
Comparison results
-25.2%-4%
-34%-60%
-7%7%
0%-18%
15%21%
9%3%5%
-1%9%
-26.1%-3%
ArgentinaAustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaEU-27IndiaIndonesiaJapanMexicoRussiaSaudi ArabiaSouth AfricaSouth KoreaTurkeyU.K.U.S.
17 April 20, 2021
-43%
-33%
-33%
-31%
-12%
-11%
-10%
-9%
-6%
-1%
4%
7%
14%
22%
50%
84%
87%
EU-27
Australia
South Korea
U.S.
Russia
Japan
U.K.
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Indonesia
Argentina
South Africa
Brazil
Turkey
India
China
Canada
All G-20: +26%
● This metric is arguably the most accurate reflection of the effort required for a party to meet its emission target and thus its level of ambition. To
limit global warming to 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, emissions for the G-20 in 2030 would need to be 53% and 37% lower than business-as-usual
(BAU) levels. However, our analysis finds if the current NDCs are all met, G-20 emissions would in fact be 26% higher than BAU in 2030.
● This is because seven G-20 countries, including major emitters China and India, incentivize no abatement. In particular, China and Canada would
be able to emit 84% and 87% more in 2030 relative to 2018 levels and still meet their climate pledges.
● At the other end of the spectrum, only the EU-27 would be deemed to be aligned with a 2-degree scenario: its 2030 target would require the bloc
to cut emissions to 43% of BAU levels, implying significant abatement efforts would be needed.
Comparison 4: gap to BAU scenario
In line with 1.5°C:
-53% or less
In line with 2°C:
-52% to -37%
Slightly ambitious:
-36% to 0%
Unambitious:
Over 0%
More ambitious
Less ambitious
Required emissions cuts from BAU projections to
achieve NDC target, 2030
● As with the other metrics, it is important to consider these results
alongside other indicators. This is because the accuracy of this
metric depends on the estimates for BAU emissions and the
assumption that a party maintains historical trends in energy
consumption and emission intensity.
● For example, we rate the U.K. as ‘Slightly ambitious’ on this
metric but it is in line with a 1.5-degree target in the other three.
This is because it has already made progress on efficiency
savings and switching to cleaner fuels, having cut energy
intensity by half and emission intensity by a third over 1990-2018.
On a BAU basis, therefore, it reduces emissions by 40% 2018-30
– a similar decrease required to achieve its NDC target.
● Saudi Arabia has no NDC emission target. In the scenario where
2030 goals are met, we assume that the country maintains its
historical growth rate so that emissions climb 19% 2018-30.
However, in the BAU scenario, it accelerates its increase in
energy intensity to the extent that emissions rise 46% by 2030
from 2018 levels.
Source: WRI CAIT, World Bank, IMF, UNFCCC. Note: U.S. is assumed to maintain emission trends from its 2025 target. Saudi Arabia is striped to illustrate this is based on
BAU emissions, as its NDC has no emission target.
Comparison results
18 April 20, 2021
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
BAU emissions
Source: BloombergNEF.
● The U.S. is due to announce a new 2030 emission target at the April 22-23 climate summit. The core analysis in this report assumes the
country maintains the level of ambition to 2030 consistent with its official Paris pledge of a 26% cut vs. 2005 by 2025. This equates to a 38%
drop vs. 2005 by the end of the decade.
● The left-hand figure shows U.S. BAU emissions (shaded gray) and the trajectory required to achieve potential goals the White House is
considering, according to Bloomberg News reporting. The right-hand table shows the potential impact each possible goal would have on the
four comparison metrics. A new 48% cut by 2050 target would bring the U.S. in line with a 1.5- or 2-degree scenario for three of four indicators.
But even a 53% cut – the most ambitious reportedly on the table – would not bring U.S. 2030 emissions per capita below the global average.
However, a target of 53% or more would boost the total score BNEF has calculated to 13 out of 20 - up from the current 7 - putting it more or
less on a par with the EU and U.K. in terms of its total ambition score.
● How the U.S. would implement sufficient domestic policies to meet a new target remains to be seen. The U.S. is not unique in this regard; all
G-20 countries have room for improvement in terms of implementing concrete policies to achieve deep decarbonization.
What a new U.S. target might mean
Reduction
on 2005
Absolute
emissions
Emission
intensity
Emissions per
capita
Gap to BAU
scenario
26% by
2025
48% by
2030
50% by
2030
53% by
2030
Potential new
2030 targets
Maintains ambition
of current 26-28%
target for 2025
48%
50%
53%
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious Unambitious
U.S. emissions and target trajectories Potential impact of 2030 on ambition metrics
Comparison results
19 April 20, 2021
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: BloombergNEF. Note: Value for BAU emissions in 2019 was based on data from Japan's Ministry of Environment.
● The Japanese government is also discussing a more ambitious 2030 emission target to be announced “as soon as possible” before COP26,
Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said at the BloombergNEF Summit April 14. This could mean the week of the White House-hosted
climate summit April 22-23 after President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga launched their U.S.-Japan climate partnership.
● If Japan retains its current target of a 26% reduction on 2013 levels, it may come under pressure to make a stronger commitment: our analysis
indicates that it has the least ambitious NDC pledge of the developed countries, with an aggregate score of 4 points out of 20. The government
has not officially announced the proposed targets under discussion, but media reports suggest it could in the 40-50% range.
● Even a 40% goal would mark a notable increase in ambition, as Japan would be in line with a 2-degree scenario on three of the four metrics
used in our analysis. A pledge of 45% or 50% would raise its aggregate score to 12 points out of 20 – three times its current total. It would also
make it easier for the country to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as pledged by Suga in October 2020.
What a new Japan target might mean
Reduction
on 2013
Absolute
emissions
Emission
intensity
Emissions per
capita
Gap to BAU
scenario
26%
40%
45%
50%
Potential new
targets
Current 26% target
40%
45%
50%
In line with 1.5°C:
-50% or less
In line with 2°C:
-49% to -32%
Slightly ambitious:
-31% to 0%
Unambitious:
Over 0%
Japan emissions and target trajectories Potential impact on ambition metrics
Comparison results
20 April 20, 2021
● In addition to having the most ambitious emission targets, current and former EU member states – Germany, France Italy, and the U.K. – have
also implemented relatively strong decarbonization policies compared with other G-20 countries, BloombergNEF has found. The G-20 Zero-
Carbon Policy Scoreboard (web | terminal) evaluates countries’ policies based on 122 qualitative and quantitative metrics.
● The nations in the top quartile have a higher number of robust, concrete measures to achieve ambitious-but-achievable goals. Their policy-
making processes are relatively transparent and predictable, and their initiatives are starting to have a measurable impact increasing
renewables build or EV sales, for example. No country has a perfect score for all areas, with those for the industry and buildings sectors most
commonly the lowest. Governments will therefore need to consider how to best address these weaknesses if they wish to achieve their climate
targets and deliver their share of emission reductions.
● These figures illustrate that some countries face significant gaps between their climate ambitions and the levels of concrete policy support in
place. Brazil and Australia both exemplify this implementation gap.
● Some members of the G-20, however, have both unambitious climate pledges and little in the way of domestic decarbonization policies. These
governments have major room for improvement. They have done most to decarbonize their power sectors, but even those policies have been
poorly implemented. These countries have done little to nothing to tackle their transport, industry, and buildings sectors.
Policies to achieve emission targets
Source: BloombergNEF (web | terminal). Note: Score for EU-27 in the right-hand chart = average for Germany, France and Italy.
Zero-Carbon Policy Scoreboard ranking
Comparison results
1614
77
5444
333
211
000
0 20
U.K.EU-27BrazilU.S.
AustraliaCanada
IndiaJapan
ArgentinaIndonesia
South KoreaMexicoChina
Saudi ArabiaRussia
South AfricaTurkey
68%65%
64%63%
52%51%
44%43%43%
39%37%37%36%36%
29%26%
22%
0% 100%
EU-27South Korea
U.K.Japan
CanadaChina
U.S.Australia
IndiaMexico
BrazilSouth Africa
TurkeyArgentinaIndonesia
Saudi ArabiaRussia
NDC target ambition ranking
Maximum =
20 points
Maximum =
100%
21 April 20, 2021
Country snapshots
22 April 20, 2021
Current target
Previous target
0
100
200
300
400
500
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
BAU emissions
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Argentina
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 21st
Share of global emissions 0.8%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Second NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Emissions cap
Unconditional target level (base year) 359MtCO2e
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -16%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -13%
Emissions per capita (2030) 7.6t
Required abatement (2018-30) +4%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target Official position of
government
The government will need to strengthen its low-carbon policies if it wants to
ramp its climate ambition. Argentina has a solid framework for clean power and
biofuels, but lacks support elsewhere. It faces other challenges too, including
the ongoing macroeconomic crisis, financial instability and capital controls.
These will also hinder Argentina’s efforts to realize the net-zero target for 2050
announced at end-2020. This target will be included in the country’s long-term
emission strategy expected to be published around the time of COP26.
Argentina is one of the few G-20 members to have upped the ambition of its emission target in its latest NDC, submitted in December 2020. It
currently pledges to cap emissions at 359 million metric tons compared with its previous unconditional goal of 483 million in its first plan. Despite
the lower cap, its target remains on the unambitious side as the country could afford to slightly increase BAU emissions and still meet its goal,
according to our analysis.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
23 April 20, 2021
Current 26% target
Current 28% target
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Australia
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 15th
Share of global emissions 1.3%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Updated NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -26-28% (on 2005)
Conditional target level n/a
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -26%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -39%
Emissions per capita (2030) 16.4t
Required abatement (2018-30) -33%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target State level only
The government’s projections suggest that the gap between emissions and the
2030 target is narrowing. However, on a BAU basis, our analysis indicates that
the country is on course to be well above its current 26-28% goal.
Even if Australia does set a more ambitious NDC target, it will probably come
with a raft of exemptions and conditions. Still a higher, near-term goal looks more
likely than a national net-zero commitment in line with many of its major trading
partners. Of greater concern is the fact that the country lacks concrete policy
support to achieve its existing 2030 goal, as shown here.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
On the basis of the overall rankings for Australia in this note, the country appears to have a relatively ambitious 2030 target, which is meant to be
“a floor on Australia’s ambition”. However, the government will likely still come under pressure to ratchet up ambition before COP26, alongside
other developed countries. Its “goal is to reach net zero emissions as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison
said in a speech on February 1. But he said that this was not an official commitment, adding “but when we get there, when we get there.”
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
24 April 20, 2021
Current target
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Brazil
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 7th
Share of global emissions 2.9%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Updated NDC
More ambitious emission target? Added 2030 target
Target deadline 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -43% (on 2005)
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -46%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -23%
Emissions per capita (2030) 5.2t
Required abatement (2018-30) +14%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target Under discussion
Based on its total score, Brazil has the most ambitious 2030 emission target of the developing countries in the G-20 and is in line with a 1.5-
degree scenario in terms of the change in absolute greenhouse-gas output 2010-30. However, on a BAU basis, emissions could be 14% higher in
2030 and the target would still be met. In any case, its biofuel program and renewables auctions mean it has made most progress in the area of
low-carbon fuels and clean power, but government support for other sectors is lacking.
The government suggests its updated NDC is “compatible with an indicative long-
term objective of reaching climate neutrality in 2060”. It would require the use of
carbon offsets to achieve that goal and finance from abroad of at least $10 billion
a year. This move is made less convincing by Brazil’s poor record on
deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which has surged under the Bolsonaro
administration. At Paris, the country pledged to crack down on illegal
deforestation by 2030 and restore 12 million hectares of forests. But its latest
NDC does not refer to these commitments.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
BAU emissions
Country snapshots
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
25 April 20, 2021
Current target
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Canada
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 10th
Share of global emissions 1.6%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -30% (on 2005)
Conditional target level n/a
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -28%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -37%
Emissions per capita (2030) 17.9t
Required abatement (2018-30) +87%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2016
2050 emission target -80% (on 2005)
Net-zero target Legislative process
As a major fossil-fuel producer, Canada remains in the top two among G-20 countries for projected emissions per capita in 2030 and it requires
the least abatement to achieve its 2030 NDC target. This is partly due to its modest goal but also because of recent progress in cutting emissions.
The government is preparing an updated NDC, which it says is to be submitted “well in advance of” COP26. (A consultation was published in
March 2021.) Having previously aligned its target with that of the U.S., Trudeau may be waiting for Biden to make the first move.
Canada’s new long-term strategy is due to include a net-zero target. At end-2020
a bill was introduced in Parliament to achieve the goal and the government
published an expansive climate plan (web | terminal). Federal policy makers now
have a stronger hand after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the national
carbon tax. The tax, which plays a central role in Trudeau’s net-zero strategy, is
to rise to C$170 ($135) per metric ton by 2030. Ontario, Alberta and
Saskatchewan had filed lawsuits arguing the levy infringed on their jurisdiction.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
26 April 20, 2021
Current 60% target
Current 65% target
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
28,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
China
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 1st
Share of global emissions 23.9%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Intensity (GDP)
Unconditional target level (base year) -60-65% (on 2005)
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +155%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -33%
Emissions per capita (2030) 17.7t
Required abatement (2018-30) +84%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target Official position
of government
It is perhaps unsurprising that China has yet to update its NDC after the country resisted calls at the 2019 COP for parties to ratchet up their
ambition in time for the next UN climate summit. The country intends to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030, according to its 14th Five-Year
Plan released in March 2021, although investment in emission-intensive sectors like coal-fired power plants is not banned. For more detail, see:
BNEF’s Take on China’s 14th Five-Year Plan (web | terminal).
A more ambitious 2030 target would be needed to put China on a path to carbon
neutrality by 2060 – the pledge announced by President Xi Jinping in September.
Realizing this goal now presents an enormous challenge for the major emitter, as
discussed in our note (web | terminal). More broadly, China’s move likely
encouraged other major economies to make similar pledges. Prior to Xi’s UN
speech, the EU had already asked China to commit to a date for carbon
neutrality in their latest trade negotiations and the target could put China in a
favorable position if the EU imposes any carbon-border-adjustment mechanism.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
27 April 20, 2021
Current target
Previous target
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
EU-27
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 4th
Share of global emissions 6.8%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Updated NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -55% (on 1990)
Conditional target level n/a
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -47%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -56%
Emissions per capita (2030) 4.3t
Required abatement (2018-30) -43%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2020
2050 emission target Carbon neutrality
Net-zero target Legislative process
The EU has one of the most ambitious NDC targets in the G-20. That said, it is struggling to legislate its 2030 goals and to set a net-zero by 2050
goal. EU leaders’ deal in December was subject to various conditions to bring on board fossil-fuel-dependent member states. But the Parliament
is pushing for a 60% cut with little progress made in the latest talks with the Council and Commission in late March 2021. Further delay could
jeopardize the forthcoming package of policies to achieve the more ambitious target.
Regardless, the EU will likely still push for more climate action and collaboration
at COP26. It may come under fire from its trading partners if the European
Commission releases the proposal for a carbon-border tariff in the summer, as
planned. The Parliament seems to be in favor, having adopted a non-binding
report in March 2021 endorsing such a mechanism (web | terminal). It will be
challenging to ensure it is tough enough to prevent carbon leakage but not so
tough that it leads to backlash from trading partners. For more, see: New Dawn
for Carbon Pricing as EU Targets Imports (web | terminal).
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
28 April 20, 2021
Projection
Current 30% target
Current 35% target
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
India
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 3rd
Share of global emissions 6.8%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Intensity (GDP)
Unconditional target level (base year) -33-35% (on 2005)
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +170%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -4%
Emissions per capita (2030) 4.8t
Required abatement (2018-30) +50%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target
The Indian government has set up a task force to examine potential timelines and pathways for reaching net-zero emissions. Having last
submitted an NDC in 2016, it is under pressure to clarify its short- and long-term ambitions. If it achieves its current 2030 target, emissions will
more than double from 2018 levels, although so too will GDP. As discussed above, India has by far the lowest per-capita emissions of the G-20
members, and its NDC pledge would be in line with a 2-degree scenario if assessed on that basis.
Nonetheless, India is the world’s third-largest emitter and its current target would
enable it to increase greenhouse-gas output by half again by 2030. The country
may therefore request significant support (financial or otherwise) in return for a
net-zero commitment. India’s current NDC requests over $1 trillion from
developed countries, accounting for a quarter of the total $4.3 trillion requested
by emerging economies. Alternatively, the government may opt for a near-zero
emission target, as it seeks to balance the need to tackle climate change and to
enable economic development.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
29 April 20, 2021
Current unconditional
target
Current conditional
target
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 6th
Share of global emissions 3.5%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Baseline scenario
Unconditional target level (base year) -29%
Conditional target level -41%
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +81%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -12%
Emissions per capita (2030) 7.1t
Required abatement (2018-30) -1%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
IndonesiaIndonesia intends to submit an updated climate plan at an unspecified date in the near future. A net-zero target is reportedly on the cards, subject to
financing from developed nations. Its current unconditional NDC goal is not in line with Paris on the basis of any of the four metrics this note details.
Its latest NDC, released in 2016, includes a more ambitious target for a 41% reduction on its baseline scenario “subject to availability of
international support for finance, technology transfer and development and capacity building”. But this pledge would only be slightly more ambitious.
If Indonesia makes a stronger emission pledge, it will need to improve its
domestic policy framework and improve investor confidence: uncertainty is high
after the government made sudden changes to the renewables regulation without
industry consultation, while the tariff framework for clean power projects put them
in direct competition with cheap coal. There is a general lack of government
incentives or regulations in the other sectors. Another challenge will be how to
mitigate emissions from deforestation and land-use change, with millions of
hectares of forest included in existing logging and plantation concessions.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
30 April 20, 2021
Current target
0
400
800
1,200
1,600
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Japan
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 8th
Share of global emissions 2.4%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Updated NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline FY 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -26% (on FY 2013)
Conditional target level n/a
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -16%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -1%
Emissions per capita (2030) 7.8t
Required abatement (2018-30) -11%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2019
2050 emission target -80% (on 2010)
Net-zero target Legislative process
Japan’s 2030 target as of April 19, 2021 is on a par with Canada in terms of ambition but below all other developed countries in the G-20, except
Russia. But the government is planning to announce a stronger 2030 commitment “as soon as possible” before COP26, Environment Minister
Shinjiro Koizumi said at the BloombergNEF summit April 14. Japan will need to accelerate the current downward trend in emissions to meet its
net-zero target for 2050, announced – to the surprise of many – by Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga at end-2020.
Achieving this goal will require more policy support to accelerate the
decarbonization of the power sector and promote electrification of end-use
sectors, as well as low-carbon fuels (web | terminal). The government has
already begun discussions on revamped carbon pricing – its current levy on
fossil-fuel consumption is too low to spur decarbonization. It is due to announce a
higher renewable energy target in 2Q and is mulling a policy to phase out
inefficient coal plants, but the measure leaves the path for plants to remain online
by co-firing biomass, undermining the nation’s climate goals (web | terminal).
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
31 April 20, 2021
Current unconditional
target
Current conditional
target
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Mexico
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 11th
Share of global emissions 1.4%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Updated NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Baseline scenario
Unconditional target level (base year) -22%
Conditional target level -36%
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +32%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) +26%
Emissions per capita (2030) 5.7t
Required abatement (2018-30) -6%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2016
2050 emission target -50% (on 2000)
Net-zero target
Mexico’s NDC target for greenhouse-gas emissions is insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, putting the country at the
lower end of the G-20 ranking. “If there are more resources available for implementation” (according to its NDC), it would raise its target to 36%,
meaning emissions in 2030 would be 23% below BAU – but still not enough to comply with Paris. The government has shown no signs of
announcing a more ambitious goal and its explicit efforts to block renewable power deployment will be more likely to impede decarbonization.
The country’s long-term strategy, submitted by the previous administration,
includes a 2050 target for a 50% reduction below 2000 levels. A net-zero pledge
seems unlikely, given that current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador
(AMLO) has cut the climate-action budget and prioritized development of state-
owned oil and power companies as a way to ensure “energy sovereignty”. In
March, AMLO signed a controversial power-sector bill but it was suspended
indefinitely by a federal court. In response, the government may seek a
constitutional reform of the energy sector. For more, see our note (web | terminal).
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
32 April 20, 2021
Current 30% target
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Russia
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 5th
Share of global emissions 4.1%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status First NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -30% (on 1990)
Conditional target level n/a
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +19%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) +24%
Emissions per capita (2030) 14.1t
Required abatement (2018-30) -12%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
Russia has one of the least ambitious NDC targets of the G-20. Even this goal is subject to the conditions that it takes “into account the maximum
absorptive capacity of forests and other ecosystems and subject to the sustainable and balanced social-economic development of the Russian
Federation”. How this would be defined is not clear. The country has made some progress in increasing energy efficiency (a 6% decrease over
1990-2017) but even less in switching to cleaner fuels (less than 1% reduction in emission intensity of energy).
We therefore expect greenhouse-gas output to rise 15% on a BAU basis 2018-30
– more than any other Annex I party in the G-20. As a result, it may still struggle
to realize its modest NDC target, especially as the country lacks concrete
incentives and regulations to spur decarbonization. Russia came last in
BloombergNEF’s assessment of G-20 countries’ zero-carbon policies. For the
foreseeable future, Russia will remain a leading oil and gas producer and
exporter, although the government is exploring how to diversify the economy. It is
also devising a system for companies to monitor and report their emissions.
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
33 April 20, 2021
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Saudi Arabia
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 14th
Share of global emissions 1.3%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline
Type
Unconditional target level (base year)
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +64%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) +9%
Emissions per capita (2030) 22.7t
Required abatement (2018-30) -9%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target
Saudi Arabia’s NDC, submitted in 2016, does not include a quantitative emission target. Instead the Kingdom said it would “engage in actions and
plans in pursuit of economic diversification that have co-benefits in the form of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission avoidances and adaptation to the
impacts of climate change, as well as reducing the impacts of response measures.” The kingdom did submit an ‘Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution’ - climate plans submitted to the UN before the Paris Agreement came into force. Thereafter these plans have been known as ‘NDCs’.)
Saudi’s INDC said that the measures in its plan would achieve a reduction of “up
to” 130 million metric tons in emission reductions in 2030. But it did not specify a
baseline projection for emissions in that year, making it impossible to measure
progress. We have therefore not included it in this note, not least because It
reserves the right to curtail ambition in the event that oil export revenues
diminish, as was notably the case over 2020. Instead of emission targets, the
kingdom has focused on renewables deployment, although it is some way form
achieve its targets (web | terminal).
Emissions based on BAU projection
Country snapshots
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
BAU emissions
34 April 20, 2021
Current 398Mt target
Current 641Mt target
0
200
400
600
800
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
South Africa
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 16th
Share of global emissions 1.1%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2025-30
Type Emissions cap
Unconditional target level (base year) 398-614MtCO2e
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +21%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) +28%
Emissions per capita (2030) 9.8t
Required abatement (2018-30) +7%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2020
2050 emission target
Net-zero target Legislative process
South Africa’s 2016 NDC includes an unambitious target for 2030: emissions of 614 million metric tons in that year would equate to a 21%
increase on 2010 levels. However, in March the Cabinet approved a new climate plan, which is open for public consultation and due to be
submitted before COP26. The new target would have the same minimum of 398 million metric tons but would reduce the maximum by 40% to
440 million. If achieved, this would represent a 13% decrease on 2010, albeit not enough to limit global warming to 2 degrees.
Like India and other developing countries, South Africa has said it requires
funding from abroad to achieve its emission-reduction goals. The draft NDC
estimates that it will require some $4.5 billion per year by 2025 and $8 billion
annually over 2026-30. Looking beyond, the Cabinet approved a net-zero target
for 2050, which was reiterated in its long-term emission strategy submitted to the
UN. But it has not yet been submitted to Parliament. Its previously successful
renewables auction program is at last back up and running, but the government
will need to introduce significant support in other sectors to meet that 2050 goal.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
35 April 20, 2021
Current target
0
200
400
600
800
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
South Korea
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 13th
Share of global emissions 1.4%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Updated NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -24.4% (on 2017)
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -15%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -43%
Emissions per capita (2030) 9.7t
Required abatement (2018-30) -33%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2020
2050 emission target Carbon neutrality
Net-zero target Legislative process
In its updated NDC, South Korea has changed its emission target type from a previous goal based on a BAU scenario. It now uses a base-year
target – seeking to get to 24.4% below 2017 levels by 2030 – with a peak of 709.1MtCO2e. Neither would be sufficient to achieve the goals of the
Paris Agreement, nor would they put South Korea on a path to achieve its net-zero target. This pledge is midway through the legislative process
but it is not clear whether legally binding measures to implement the goal will be forthcoming.
The government has made a start: it doubled the renewables mandate in
February (web | terminal), it offers generous subsidies for EVs and charging
infrastructure, and its fine-dust pollution reduction regulations are helping to
reduce coal-power generation. But to reach net zero, Korea would have to restart
its long-dormant energy market reforms and revamp the existing emission-
trading scheme, which currently offers significant free allocation of permits. The
government will also need buy-in from state-affiliated energy companies and
family-led conglomerates known as ‘Chaebols’. Read more: web | terminal.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
36 April 20, 2021
Current target
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
Turkey
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 17th
Share of global emissions 1.0%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status INDC only
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Baseline scenario
Unconditional target level (base year) -21%
Conditional target level
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) +180%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) +151%
Emissions per capita (2030) 10.7t
Required abatement (2018-30) +22%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN?
2050 emission target
Net-zero target
The Turkish government has yet to submit an NDC, so the analysis in this note used its ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contribution’. (The INDCs
were parties’ climate plans submitted to the UN before the Paris Agreement came into force. Thereafter these plans were known as ‘NDCs’.) The
country signed the Paris treaty in 2016 but is the only G-20 member yet to ratify the deal. One barrier is its inclusion in the list of developed nations
required to provide financial and other support to emerging economies. (Turkey was an Annex I party under the Kyoto Protocol.)
If it maintains recent trend, Turkey will see energy and emission intensity climb
11% and 9%. With its economy poised to grow 28% over 2018-30, according to
the IMF, BAU emissions reach just under 760 million metric tons by 2030.
However, Turkey’s target is based on the government’s 2030 estimate of 1,175
million, partly due to more optimistic economic growth prospects.
As a result, even if it achieves a 21% reduction on the government’s 2030 total, it
could still have room for higher emissions based on our BAU estimates, as
shown in the figure below.
Emissions based on BAU projection and INDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
37 April 20, 2021
Current target
Previous target
0
200
400
600
800
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
U.K.
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 18th
Share of global emissions 0.9%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status Updated NDC
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2030
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -68% (on 1990)
Conditional target level n/a
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -59%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -64%
Emissions per capita (2030) 3.5t
Required abatement (2018-30) -10%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2018
2050 emission target -80% (on 1990)
Net-zero target Legislated
The U.K. just pips the EU-27 to the post for the ambition of its 2030 emission target, which is deemed to be in line with a 1.5-degree scenario
according to three of the four metrics in this note. Its latest NDC commits the U.K. to a 68% cut on 1990 levels – from the EU’s previous 40%
goal. The new target is also in line with recommendations from the independent Commission on Climate Change, although the government has
yet to explain how it intends to realize its NDC pledge and legislated net-zero target for 2050.
The country has one of the strongest zero-carbon policy mixes in the G-20,
having been a leader on fossil-fuel phase-out, offshore wind deployment and
carbon pricing. But it lacks concrete incentives to promote low-carbon fuels and
CCUS except for isolated funding competitions.
In particular, it has yet to introduce comprehensive and consistent support to
promote energy-efficiency savings and cleaner fuels for buildings, which account
for a sizeable share of emissions and energy use.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
38 April 20, 2021
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
million metric tons of CO2-equivalent
Current 26%
target (2025)
Current 28%
target (2025)
Source: WRI CAIT, UNFCCC, BloombergNEF
U.S.
Current status (2018)
Ranking for global emissions 2nd
Share of global emissions 11.8%
Near-term ambition
2020 NDC status
More ambitious emission target?
Target deadline 2025
Type Base year
Unconditional target level (base year) -26-28% (on 2005)
Conditional target level n/a
Change in absolute emissions (2010-30) -34%
Change in emission intensity of GDP (2010-30) -54%
Emissions per capita (2030) 11.7t
Required abatement (2018-30) -31%
Long-term ambition
Long-term climate plan sent to the UN? Submitted 2016
2050 emission target -80% (on 2005)
Net-zero target State level only
President Biden is due to announce a new 2030 target by the Earth Day summit April 22-23. As discussed on slide 19, the toughest pledge
reportedly under debate – 53% by 2030 – would close the gap between the U.S. and its European trading partners. One of Biden’s first moves on
taking office was to re-join the Paris Agreement. Because the COP process relies on peer pressure, it had been seriously weakened by the
absence of the world’s second-largest emitter.
Now that the U.S. has returned to the Paris fold, it aims to rebuild its credibility.
Biden’s pre-election climate plan mentioned a net-zero target for 2050 but his
administration has not exactly attempted to enshrine that into law. To make good
on any such pledge, U.S. federal and state-level governments would need to
ramp policy support substantially. Relative to other members of the G-20, the
U.S. has some of the strongest support for low-carbon fuels and CCUS. But it
offers little to promote decarbonization of other sectors, notably industry and
buildings. Even its current emission pledge for 2025 will be hard to meet.
Emissions based on BAU projection and NDC target
Country snapshots
BAU emissions
In line with 1.5°C In line with 2°C Slightly ambitious UnambitiousLegend for table
39 April 20, 2021
Appendix
40 April 20, 2021
Source: World BankSource: International Monetary Fund
Unless stated otherwise:
● Emission data are for all greenhouse gases, including land use, land-use change and forestry.
● Our analysis was based on unconditional NDC targets.
● We used the latest government target for 2030 – whether a party’s INDC, first or updated, or second NDC, and regardless of whether the
party had a target for before 2030.
● For parties only with targets for 2025 – notably the U.S. – we assumed that it maintained out to 2030 a consistent level of ambition and thus
emission reduction.
● Some countries – notably China – has a carbon-intensity target only. In such cases, we assumed that the target applied to all greenhouse-gas.
● In the case of Saudi Arabia, its NDC did not include a quantitative emission target. Instead, we extrapolated emissions out to 2030 assuming
that current trends continue.
● The figures below show our assumptions for GDP (from the IMF) and population (from the World Bank).
Assumptions
-4%
21%
-30%
15%
282%
19%
182%
107%
-14%
5%
-3%
50%
-5%
51%
12%
13%
43%
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
EU-27
India
Indonesia
Japan
Mexico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
Turkey
U.K.
U.S.
$ billion, real 2020, over 2010-30
16%
23%
12%
16%
6%
0%
17%
19%
-4%
19%
0.5%
36%
23%
4%
20%
9%
10%
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
EU-27
India
Indonesia
Japan
Mexico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
Turkey
U.K.
U.S.
Change over 2010-30
GDP projections Population projections
Appendix
41 April 20, 2021
Copyright
© Bloomberg Finance L.P. 2021. This publication is the copyright of Bloomberg Finance L.P. in connection with BloombergNEF. No portion of this
document may be photocopied, reproduced, scanned into an electronic system or transmitted, forwarded or distributed in any way without prior
consent of BloombergNEF.
Disclaimer
The BloombergNEF ("BNEF"), service/information is derived from selected public sources. Bloomberg Finance L.P. and its affiliates, in providing
the service/information, believe that the information it uses comes from reliable sources, but do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of
this information, which is subject to change without notice, and nothing in this document shall be construed as such a guarantee. The statements
in this service/document reflect the current judgment of the authors of the relevant articles or features, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion
of Bloomberg Finance L.P., Bloomberg L.P. or any of their affiliates (“Bloomberg”). Bloomberg disclaims any liability arising from use of this
document, its contents and/or this service. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed as an offering of financial instruments or as investment
advice or recommendations by Bloomberg of an investment or other strategy (e.g., whether or not to “buy”, “sell”, or “hold” an investment). The
information available through this service is not based on consideration of a subscriber’s individual circumstances and should not be considered
as information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision. You should determine on your own whether you agree with the content. This
service should not be construed as tax or accounting advice or as a service designed to facilitate any subscriber’s compliance with its tax,
accounting or other legal obligations. Employees involved in this service may hold positions in the companies mentioned in the
services/information.
The data included in these materials are for illustrative purposes only. The BLOOMBERG TERMINAL service and Bloomberg data products (the
“Services”) are owned and distributed by Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“BFLP”) except (i) in Argentina, Australia and certain jurisdictions in the Pacific
islands, Bermuda, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand, where Bloomberg L.P. and its subsidiaries (“BLP”) distribute these products, and
(ii) in Singapore and the jurisdictions serviced by Bloomberg’s Singapore office, where a subsidiary of BFLP distributes these products. BLP
provides BFLP and its subsidiaries with global marketing and operational support and service. Certain features, functions, products and services
are available only to sophisticated investors and only where permitted. BFLP, BLP and their affiliates do not guarantee the accuracy of prices or
other information in the Services. Nothing in the Services shall constitute or be construed as an offering of financial instruments by BFLP, BLP or
their affiliates, or as investment advice or recommendations by BFLP, BLP or their affiliates of an investment strategy or whether or not to “buy”,
“sell” or “hold” an investment. Information available via the Services should not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base an
investment decision. The following are trademarks and service marks of BFLP, a Delaware limited partnership, or its subsidiaries: BLOOMBERG,
BLOOMBERG ANYWHERE, BLOOMBERG MARKETS, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BLOOMBERG PROFESSIONAL, BLOOMBERG TERMINAL and
BLOOMBERG.COM. Absence of any trademark or service mark from this list does not waive Bloomberg’s intellectual property rights in that
name, mark or logo. All rights reserved. © 2021 Bloomberg.
Copyright and disclaimer
BloombergNEF (BNEF) is a strategic
research provider covering global commodity
markets and the disruptive technologies
driving the transition to a low-carbon
economy.
Our expert coverage assesses pathways for
the power, transport, industry, buildings and
agriculture sectors to adapt to the energy
transition.
We help commodity trading, corporate
strategy, finance and policy professionals
navigate change and generate opportunities.
Client enquiries:
Bloomberg Terminal: press <Help> key twice
Email: [email protected]
Learn more:
about.bnef.com | @BloombergNEF
Victoria Cuming,